4 ms·

Many people do actively want to end their family lines, and they have a right to decide to do that. I don't know about colonizing other planets, but hey, it's a

Many people do actively want to end their family lines, and they have a right to decide to do that. I don't know about colonizing other planets, but hey, it's also a choice to try to go do that. I was born on the earth, and I'd prefer to have children, and myself die on this earth. Maybe if I have some descendents, some of them will end up living on other planets or in outer space. I don't know. It's hard to overstate how gargantuan of a move leaving the planet we started on is, the emotional impact of it plus the immense challenges it will bring.

bendbro 5y ago
Soft
- JetAlone 5y ago
  Soft because I prefer not to go to space and deal with the hardships? Soft because I decide to allow other people to choose extinction instead of hoping to impose my own pro-natalism on them?
  - JetAlone 5y ago
    You didn't answer, so be it. On reconsideration I admit I was wrong and "soft" to use the word "right" - it's not their "right" because I don't actually think rights even really exist. It's their choice made with free will. I'd like it if they became pro-natalist like me, but it would be absurd to try and force them to. Best I can do is make an appeal: you'd be happier if you go live real, natural life. If that's on mars (which I doubt), so be it.
kortilla 5y ago
People did the same thing leaving Europe for the Americas. For many it was a one-way trip with a high likelihood of death.
- JetAlone 5y ago
  Yes, and going to another planet is at least an order of magnitude more stark and perilous of a change. I don't feel that it's the risk I'm meant to take on, I've chosen other risks and challenges. But maybe it's someone else's?
  - kortilla 5y ago
    > Yes, and going to another planet is at least an order of magnitude more stark and perilous of a change. Unlikely. As a society we’re not nearly as tolerant of knowingly sending people to their death as they were in the 1500s. A safe job of simply working a coal mine in the 1800s even would be more risky than what we end up subjecting the first mars explorers to.
    - JetAlone 5y ago
      Right now, we're not. I am firmly convinced that will eventually change. EDIT: I missed out on something. "Knowingly" is a strong word for this case. Nobody knew for 100% certain if an early American colonist was going to die or achieve prosperity. Nobody knows the same about a hypothetical martian colonist. We've become more culturally sensitive about risk in this exact way, thinking we "know" the outcome based on scrutinized likelihoods. We didn't suddenly become rational in the face of nigh certain death, where before we were just being silly about it. We're not necessarily silly in either case to most heavily consider the risk or the benefit, I'd say it all really depends on what's called for at that time.
      - kortilla 5y ago
        No, it was very well known that there were high risks of death just because of weather, food, disease, etc and people did it in the face of that. The only people who went were doing under the promises of vast riches or having literally no other options. There was no welfare to keep them alive in Europe so a 1/4 chance of dying on the journey as a deck hand with only a 1/100 chance of ever coming back was still appealing. We know way more about what a Martian colonist will experience even now than the people in Europe did about the various risks even after a smattering of successful journeys. Modern society is very intolerant of unknown risks like that. An aircraft worthy of passenger travel in the 1950s is considered barbaric by todays standards. The risks incurred by astronauts on the international space station are lower than the passengers that took flights in the 1930s.

bendbro 5y ago

Soft

JetAlone 5y ago
Soft because I prefer not to go to space and deal with the hardships? Soft because I decide to allow other people to choose extinction instead of hoping to impose my own pro-natalism on them?
- JetAlone 5y ago
  You didn't answer, so be it. On reconsideration I admit I was wrong and "soft" to use the word "right" - it's not their "right" because I don't actually think rights even really exist. It's their choice made with free will. I'd like it if they became pro-natalist like me, but it would be absurd to try and force them to. Best I can do is make an appeal: you'd be happier if you go live real, natural life. If that's on mars (which I doubt), so be it.

kortilla 5y ago

People did the same thing leaving Europe for the Americas. For many it was a one-way trip with a high likelihood of death.

JetAlone 5y ago
Yes, and going to another planet is at least an order of magnitude more stark and perilous of a change. I don't feel that it's the risk I'm meant to take on, I've chosen other risks and challenges. But maybe it's someone else's?
- kortilla 5y ago
  > Yes, and going to another planet is at least an order of magnitude more stark and perilous of a change. Unlikely. As a society we’re not nearly as tolerant of knowingly sending people to their death as they were in the 1500s. A safe job of simply working a coal mine in the 1800s even would be more risky than what we end up subjecting the first mars explorers to.
  - JetAlone 5y ago
    Right now, we're not. I am firmly convinced that will eventually change. EDIT: I missed out on something. "Knowingly" is a strong word for this case. Nobody knew for 100% certain if an early American colonist was going to die or achieve prosperity. Nobody knows the same about a hypothetical martian colonist. We've become more culturally sensitive about risk in this exact way, thinking we "know" the outcome based on scrutinized likelihoods. We didn't suddenly become rational in the face of nigh certain death, where before we were just being silly about it. We're not necessarily silly in either case to most heavily consider the risk or the benefit, I'd say it all really depends on what's called for at that time.
    - kortilla 5y ago
      No, it was very well known that there were high risks of death just because of weather, food, disease, etc and people did it in the face of that. The only people who went were doing under the promises of vast riches or having literally no other options. There was no welfare to keep them alive in Europe so a 1/4 chance of dying on the journey as a deck hand with only a 1/100 chance of ever coming back was still appealing. We know way more about what a Martian colonist will experience even now than the people in Europe did about the various risks even after a smattering of successful journeys. Modern society is very intolerant of unknown risks like that. An aircraft worthy of passenger travel in the 1950s is considered barbaric by todays standards. The risks incurred by astronauts on the international space station are lower than the passengers that took flights in the 1930s.